I am not sure if this has already been discussed, but i think it is probably the only weak point of the game.

As we know, when players buy a property he/she returns to start without payment and this is absolutely RIGHT. After recession, people that buy properties also return to start. This is ALSO RIGHT. What is wrong in my opinion is that:

In contrast with before-recession, AFTER RECESSION ONLY when a player tries to buy a property to return to start, if another player bids more to buy the property, it should be the one who paid and bought the property that should go to start, not the one that started the auction. The one that started the auction can of course get the 20% profit, but (after recession only ) the one that payed more should go back to start.

This way luck is minimised even more. If a player is just lucky to land on an orange property at the end, he starts the auction to go to start, but if someone prefers to pay more to go to start the auction can go on, and the 20% profit can go as usual to the one that started the auction.

The way rules are now, luck is not minimised in this occassion, allowing players to buy anything to go to start without anyone else being able to do anything. if others bid and buy, they pay, but still the one that started the auction gets the profit AND goes to start. I suggest that AFTER RECESSION ONLY, the one to pay more and buy goes to start, this way players that earned money can pay to stop "lucky" people that did nothing, from going to start 3,4,5 or more times by paying 100 or 200 only for a property, when others have payed 1000s to buy and build big properties. At least there should be a way to stop someone returning back after recession, even if we have to pay for that and even if the auctioner will still get the 20% profit.

After recession the disadvantage of going back to start without payment becomes an advantage, and people abuse it. If i can pay more than them to stop them (they still make profit anyway), why shouldnt i be able to?

I believe there is a point in this thought, and i hope people will agree with this. For this reason i start a poll here, so anyone that wants luck even more minimised help by voting.

I would like admin opinion on this please when u have some time.
Thanks.

That's an interesting idea.
In this way, the person who started the auction would get the 20% commission, but the person who bid the most would get both the mortgage value and the bypass to "Go".

Also, if I had the pinks and greens fully upgraded, I'd be willing to pay to keep other people from going back to start and avoid hitting me.

You see, both before EC and after EC, I use property purchase as an avoidance technique... if I am 6/7/8 squares away from 300+ upgraded monopoly, I may auction the blue/red/pink to avoid hitting the next monopoly, assuming that auctioning off the property doesn't give my opponent the opportunity to buy the 3rd of another monopoly.

But if I were to auction a pink to avoid green, and the person with green were to buy the pink, I'd still be on the pink square.

Actually, now that I think about it... should the person who wins an auction always be the person that goes back to start, rather than the person who started the auction?

Even before EC, that would put a whole new twist on things... if you're trying to get the 3rd green, and you're 7 squares away from it, and your opponent opens an auction for another property, if you win the auction, you go to start, and have to go all the way around the board again to line up for your 3rd green. It might encourage you to let your opponent have a property in exchange for keeping a more advantageous board position.

I ABSOLUTELY HATE IT WHEN PEOPLE BID ON STUFF TO AVIOD START AFTER COLLAPSE OR TO AVIOD MY GREEN BUT ITS STILL SO COOL TO DO IT TO OTHER PEOPLE _________________STILL GETTIN POINTS THE HARD WAY...NONE OF MY POINTS ARE FLUFFY TOURNAMENT GIFTS SO YOU GOTTA KNOW BUU MEANS BUISINESS AND BY THE WAY DONT FORGET.... BUU WILL ABSORB U TOO!!!

I also believe it would make the game so much better by minimising luck even more. thats why we play this game and not monopoly that is a pure dice game with minimal skill.

I am not exactly sure about going to start BEFORE the economic collapse if you get the property (it needs some thought by the most experienced players), but i am very sure that AFTER the collapse, this feature would impove the game and give new depth to the strategies. People that want to get lucky can play backgammon.

We want strategy, with minimal luck. we cannot avoid the dice completely, but we can reduce its effect a lot.

Kresso, and people with experience and 40.000++ points, i would be grateful if you could let us know your respected opinion.

At time of EC almost 90% of board is occupied. So the person landing on free property has luck and only pure luck playing on his favor.

This impacts the game much more at late stages of EC when in multi player games, 1 of the player is our/resigns leaving loads of free properties on 1st half of board. One might argue that this avoidance strategy sud be taken into account while going for bigger property. But luck factors in as no1 knows when other player will resign.

As such i too feel this is good idea to be implemented after EC. However be4 EC it might not be a good idea.

when i read about the new EC rule i thought it was actually the above suggested rule that was implemented.

The new rule is probably helpful and nice (haven't tried it yet but it probably is), but still the above rule can add to the strategy.

Why depend so much on luck? buy the last orange for 100 (80 actually, and also get 50 back as mortgage = 30) and u might win in a close game. Why? coz u had the skill of buying a property without anybody being able to stop you even if they bid 10000000?? the auctioner will still go to start, and get a 20% as well.
I believe this is the major weak point (maybe the only) of the game.
Remember i am talking about AFTER the EC only.

I dont see anyone disagreeing with the suggestion (see at the beggining of the topic), but i see people that like it, including moderators.

Kreso plz, it is your opinion that i am asking for here, i would appreciate it if you have time to reply.

Building houses on orange costs 1500. The houses can be sold for half the value. So It can be said that minimal cost for orange is 750. In order for this to pay off another player has to land there 4 times.

The probability for landing on orange in a single roll is 3/40. To get 4 landings, there must be at least 4*40/3= 53 rolls by other player. In a two player game that would be 106 rolls required for orange to pay off its 750 house price.

The question is: are there 106 rolls after economic collapse? By the new rules each full cycle is -15 to paycheck. 106 rolls means an average distance of 106*7, and 106*7/40=18.55 full cycles. This is 18.55*-15=-278.25 to paycheck. And additional -50 and additional -130 for recessions, 106 turns after economic collapse paycheck would be about -460. That's very close to game end.

So, if we take the minimal cost of orange, it barely pays off if bought immediately after economic collapse. If a more reasonable price, around 1500 is estimated as the price of orange, it would definitively not pay of after EC. Perhaps it would if there were 5 players in the game.

Anyway, buying orange after EC is a waste of money, in my opinion.

To be continued...

Last edited by Kreso on Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:37 am; edited 1 time in total

2. I'm not sure that the current rules are that bad. In order to go back to start a player has to pay 80% of the minimal price (most of the time, if other player isn't dumb), so it is not free. If he manages to go back 6 times (that's quite optimistic) by buying all orange and brown, he has saved about one and a half cycle. Not much. And the other player will have the same chance, so it will even out.

3. The one who lands on unowned property does that by pure luck, and that is, by proposed rule, almost always beneficial (he gets 20%, whatever happens). So the proposed rule suffers from luck also.

However, it's not a bad idea because going back is supposed to be a penalty for a 20% discount. And after EC going back is the prize.

but also gives you more of a chance of landing on bonus as most players do, they would rather pay 80 min for an orange go back to start n maybe land on bonus_________________love is completely being with someone, even when they arent with you, no matter what happens, ill always be here x x

1. property is worthless (like orange after EC)
- going back to start has a big value

a). old rule:
- middleman gets 20% and goes back to start.
- buyer pays for worthless property
Since nobody will buy a worthless property, the middleman will be the buyer. The result: he pays 80% for going back. He gains because he wouldn't auction the property otherwise. (unfair).

Let's say that start = -500, and I'm sitting on a RED, and pink and green are fully upgraded (not mine) and I don't have the Ext or Util on the 4th side of the board.
Someone else just landed on a free Dark Blue and auctioned it.

IF the old rule is in place, there's absolutely no reason for me to bid on it... it's 400 mortgage value, 400+ price, means I'd be losing money (assuming that I don't already have the other 2 blues). The person who landed on it would pay 320 for it, thereby "earning" 80 net (400 mortgage - 320 cost) PLUS avoid having to roll past the 4th side where he could easily spend 350-500+ AND then pass Start for another -500, therefore, the purchase makes him about 400-900 effective profit.

With the new rule, same situation, if I were to bid 430 and win for 430, the player who auctioned it gets 86 but is still sitting on the blues, ready to go down death row. It costs me net 30 (430 - 400 mortgage) to go to Start (skip the back row, saving 300-800) and miss the Start (-500) and Start doesn't decrease an additional -15. So now, it's much more beneficial for me to bid, and that blue might actually sell for 600 even in deep EC, depending on where players were situated in the board.

So you see, there's a lot more "strategy" involved in post EC auctions if the winner goes back to Start, rather than the auctioner.

With the old rule, the basic calculation is this:
base price - 20% = pay price, subtract mortgage value = net price
compare net price to current Start Value, and factor in any upcoming expensive properties you may need to get past in order to reach Start.
IF the net price is < Start value + upcoming collisions, then you'll probably auction it off, and no one will oppose you since there is really no reason to buy a property during EC unless it's the last in a mortgage, and even then, it's questionable.

Even buying the 3rd green for base price deep in EC is usually only to avoid Start, not because you're ready to go build it up and whack people.

Kreso, your math about orange was a little off.
You said that it takes 4 hits to recoup the investment in the upgrades. It's actually 8 hits (800) to recoup just the upgrade cost, and if you include the cost of the properties themselves, it's more like 12-15 hits, and 20+ hits before it's truly profitable. Let's say 200 for 1st orange, 400 for 2nd orange and 800 for 3rd orange, 1500 for full upgrade = 2900 total = 29 hits to recoup investment. In a 4 player game, assuming 1 hit per player every 2 laps = close to 15 laps to recoup your investment. In the beginning of the game, obviously there's 15 laps left, and you'll most likely recoup. But during EC, there may or may not be 15 laps left, and you might not get your money's worth before you have to sell your upgrades, and then you're just wasting your money (throwing away half of it).

I think that the new post EC rule would have a more dramatic effect in a multi-player game after one player gets eliminated during EC, rather than at the beginning of EC where the new Start value is only -50.
I haven't actually played a game with the new EC rule in effect to see how that plays out.

1. property is worthless (like orange after EC)
- chances are going back has a big value

It's a) going back for 80% vs b) getting 20% .
a) If EC is -600,
-buying last orange gets 600*9/40=135 at the price of 80.
middleman/buyer gains 55.
-Buying last red gets 600*29/40=435 meaning it's not profitable. (I don't consider mortgage because at this time player are likely in debt already).

b) middleman gains 20 for orange, 100 for red.

Result: about the same for both cases. It seems that b) has more variance. But in both cases negligible impact.

2. Property is worth something
- chances are going back has low value

The difference here is that middleman goes back to start in case a).

But if there is still a valuable property, then it is either
- a property that a player has been waiting for to complete his monopoly
- or something extremely rare

So, the new rule fixes that rare occasion. Again by this analysis, not convincing.